Revived Spirit of California (Split from HSR for MSP)

[calwatch]

The Coast Daylight is a day train, but the night train could be helpful. The "Night Coast" bus sells out on Thursdays, Fridays, and Sundays, as well as during school break periods. The rest of the week it seems to do decent business. The problem is UPRR's ransom is not going to make it financially feasible.

 

[mikil]

(from a post i made on my facebook, and someone from here suggested for me to read the above (i did), and i can post here too...)

Hi All,

was just reading about the 1981-1983 "Spirit of California" wikepedia page.

The article states (surprisingly) the ridership projections...

but doesn't say what actual riderships were, or whether the projections were reached.

would anyone happen to know the actual data? or the source of where to look it up myself?

do any ticket clerk or passengers have any anectodal stories of whether the train was popular/unpopular?

And of course in 1981, the rail map in Calif was different, with many less trains, and as noted in this wikipedia page, the Coast Starlight did not even serve SAC back then.

Since the 1980s, we have seen the San Diegans expand all the way up to San Luis Obispo, and the creation of the entirely new Capitol Corridor with primary services SAC-San Jose (with an extension already up to auburn CA). We have seen the formation of commuter rails like metrolink and altamont express.

I know the Spirit of California train was the way, at that time, to add a second train to all these cities before the creation/extensins of these corridors - as well as to connect SAC to other california cities besides the Zephyr route.

+++

Was the Spirit of California just ahead of its time?

Would there still be demand today, seeing how all other trains were created in response to passenger demand, for an overnight LAX-SJC-OKJ-SAC (and probably even to RNO) train?

I would like it as a way to travel and save money/time on hotelery. But what about other passengers?

I suppose many would just fly LAX-SFO or LAX-SAC maybe, but seems like i still hear of many people driving the route - and of course flights would do nothing for enroute cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_California

 

[CHamilton]

For those of you who are on Facebook, mikil's post above is in the Facebook Amtrak group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204531625/permalink/10152550903761626/

 

[Paulus]

I'm currently waiting on Google Books to acknowledge that, as a state publication, a Caltrans report with the ridership information should be full view rather than snippet view. Been about six weeks for "review process" so maybe I should harass them again about it.

And I will point out, once again, that overnight trains underperform and that the coastal corridor, quite frankly, isn't a good route for anything.

 

[mikil]

looking at the maps a bit further, and thinking about how cities and attractions have changed/grown over the 32 years since the 1983 discontinuance....

my first thought would be, at minimum, to run a direct train from anaheim or fullerton (heart of orange county population, as well as home to Disneyland) through to Roseville CA (northeast suburb of Sacramento).

I'd think it could be feasible to even run as a direct train from San Diego to Reno....but we'd have to see how equipment turns and travel demands would be.

People could also then do mix-n-match, thus opening up more travel possibilities.

As example, perhaps northern calif people could travel overnight to disneyland and have a full first day, then either travel back that overnight, or stay a night or 2 in hotels. But it would help the leisure traveler avoid paying 1 night in hotel.

Of course that can also be reversed, to avoid 1 night hotel expense on the backend instead of the front end.

another example, perhaps, is maybe someone in the SBA-SLO cities range, who may want the starlight for a super early arrival in LAX, do some business or attend a conference or whatever, and still be back home in time for lunch or supper.

Remember, lots of conferences start at 8am or 9am - and in chicago at least, we have to use buses to get to anything before 10am, which makes it impossible to use for morning stuff.

also, there are "occassional commuters", who live further out, probably telecommute or consult a couple days a week, but have to go downtown to the office 1-2 times a week. Others maintain 2 homes, one in downstate, one in chicagoland, and to a 4 day work/3 day home-home cycle (lots of state farm insurance people do this, as well as some UIUC professors and students).

We have so many from SPI (especially govt workers) or BNL (state farm workers) and CHM (Univ of IL) to chicagoland, that we even sell multiride 10ride tickets.

I would think that similar travel patterns might happen along the Calif coastal cities.

I chatted online last week to someone who recently did a Norfolk VA to Syracuse NY trip (he drove a car down to his military son and thus couldnt drive back).

another wierd itinerary i booked when i was working at amtrak res that i still remember, was a yemassee sc to minneapolis-st paul trip. Seems like an unlikely itinerary, but it was for a funeral and yemassee was only served by the palmetto at the time, not the silver meteor, so the connection in washington dc didn't work and they had to stay overnight, thus doubling their travel time. If it wasn't for "needing" to go to a funeral, they may not have booked it at all due to the inconvenience of only 1 train per day (serving yemassee) along each of the 3 segments they needed.

These enroute city travels are itineraries that simply are NOT served by air. Of course one wouldnt build a train route only for the offbeat or wierd itinerary, but by combining multiple people's wierd itineraries, along with short-haul traffic, occasional telecommuters who need early early arrivals, people (and international travelers) who want to avoid 1 night of hotel expense (especially in SF or LA), and people who either dont like to fly or dont have airline service that will serve smaller-city to other smaller-city...

then we might be able to get enough demand to serve all these diverse trips with 1 (or more) extra trains a day.

 

[mikil]

for the slo-sba example, i obviously meant to say a Spirit early morning train, as the Starlight arrives at LAX at night.

 

[Paulus]

I'm going to try and head up to CalState Fullerton and see if I can't copy the relevant pages about the Spirit of California from the Caltrans report this Wednesday since Google has apparently decided to simply blow off making things viewable like they ought to.

As example, perhaps northern calif people could travel overnight to disneyland and have a full first day, then either travel back that overnight, or stay a night or 2 in hotels. But it would help the leisure traveler avoid paying 1 night in hotel.

HSR is far more likely to get NorCal visitors than that. Really doubt that leisure travelers are super interested in doing back to back red eyes.

another example, perhaps, is maybe someone in the SBA-SLO cities range, who may want the starlight for a super early arrival in LAX, do some business or attend a conference or whatever, and still be back home in time for lunch or supper.

Nope. 2am departure times are not overly appealing.

also, there are "occassional commuters", who live further out, probably telecommute or consult a couple days a week, but have to go downtown to the office 1-2 times a week. Others maintain 2 homes, one in downstate, one in chicagoland, and to a 4 day work/3 day home-home cycle (lots of state farm insurance people do this, as well as some UIUC professors and students).

We have so many from SPI (especially govt workers) or BNL (state farm workers) and CHM (Univ of IL) to chicagoland, that we even sell multiride 10ride tickets.

I would think that similar travel patterns might happen along the Calif coastal cities.

Californians already have a significant number of those who do that, except that it's Bay Area to Basin and generally by air.

 

[neroden]

I'm currently waiting on Google Books to acknowledge that, as a state publication, a Caltrans report with the ridership information should be full view rather than snippet view. Been about six weeks for "review process" so maybe I should harass them again about it.

And I will point out, once again, that overnight trains underperform and that the coastal corridor, quite frankly, isn't a good route for anything.

Well, except for getting to the coastal cities, you know. Revival of Monterey and Santa Cruz service would be worthwhile. Paso Robles to Salinas is....mmm, well, once CAHSR opens, probably not going to get much business.

 

[Anderson]

I'm currently waiting on Google Books to acknowledge that, as a state publication, a Caltrans report with the ridership information should be full view rather than snippet view. Been about six weeks for "review process" so maybe I should harass them again about it.

And I will point out, once again, that overnight trains underperform and that the coastal corridor, quite frankly, isn't a good route for anything.

Well, except for getting to the coastal cities, you know. Revival of Monterey and Santa Cruz service would be worthwhile. Paso Robles to Salinas is....mmm, well, once CAHSR opens, probably not going to get much business.

Yes, but the question is always there whether (with improvements, and that track could probably do wonders with some improvements) whether it would make sense to run through service versus turning everything and leaving a gap. 2-3 through trains probably makes sense (there will still be plenty of pairs that are better-served by a through service than using CAHSR and "backtracking").

 

[firstcultural]

The Coast Daylight is a day train, but the night train could be helpful. The "Night Coast" bus sells out on Thursdays, Fridays, and Sundays, as well as during school break periods. The rest of the week it seems to do decent business. The problem is UPRR's ransom is not going to make it financially feasible.

While getting a night train might be years off, putting lie-flat seats on the bus could be done much sooner and would be good enough for me!

 

[jphjaxfl]

A bus is not a train and I would never consider taking a bus from Los Angeles to the Bay area or vv.

 

[Bus Nut]

This is a full 12-hour offset to the Starlight. Keep that train, with its full amenities (well, not quite as full these days) as the day train. Provide a slightly above basic meal service from the cafe car (how many of you have seen the California menu's these days?) for a late supper option and arrival breakfast option.

This train will cost less than the alternative Daylight train, and likely run into far fewer chances of delay running at night. Between the the second daylight train (running only a few hours behind the Starlight, and thus prone to adversely impacting that train as well as running into the same delay issues it may encounter,) or an overnight train (running as a 2nd frequency on the route, 12-hours separated and providing flexibility for a traveler who the current schedule does not work for by many hours,) I choose the overnight. Best-case scenario is there is a third daily round-trip needed because demand outstrips all forecasts, much like a Lynchberger-West.

I'm in total agreement, Blackwolf. Even if this is just a temporary service enhancement prior to HSR being completed it helps develop the corridor and should see synergies from the expanded menu of travel time options. Since the Daylight route IS slow and long you get some trips having better times of day than others. Someone upthread mentioned San Diego. Why would you leave San Diego on the table? Vibrant core city that attracts a lot of business (and military) travel. If anything, this is a proposal than makes too much sense.

And henryj, your point is not enhanced by shouting at everybody by tweaking the formatting options. We get it, 60s, blah blah blah. We're talking about a marginal improvement from a starting point of now, not bringing back the glory days of the Age of Rail. And right now we have an aging and increasingly disabled population, an increasingly expensive, cramped, and security-delayed air system, and a population in California that is so much greater than it was in 1960. This is about the needs of now, not relitigating the 1970s. Leave the past in the past.

Lynchberger is a good example because Virginia population has grown and they have grown their regional rail network. California's population has grown and they also need to expand their rail network. California was a MUCH smaller state in the Grand Old Days of the Pennsy System. Furthermore it makes perfect sense to enhance conventional rail while HSR is under construction. They complement each other. NEC has Acela and NER.

 

[Bus Nut]

Oops, I didn't realize I was replying to old thread from November. Sorry! :unsure:

 

[chakk]

A bus is not a train and I would never consider taking a bus from Los Angeles to the Bay area or vv.

Apparently the Megabus service is doing quite well -- including the overnight bus runs between san francisco and los angeles, with a 3 am rest/food stop in Kettleman City.

 

[Blackwolf]

A bus is not a train and I would never consider taking a bus from Los Angeles to the Bay area or vv.

Apparently the Megabus service is doing quite well -- including the overnight bus runs between san francisco and los angeles, with a 3 am rest/food stop in Kettleman City.

That is fine for Megabus. With a population of three-fifths of the entire US Eastern Megalopolis, the State of California is dramatically underserved when it comes to transport options intra-state.. I will never willingly travel on a bus over night, or for more than a few hours at a time. A train, you betcha, every time. I am far from alone. The lesson is that, with a documented population of 38+ million people (and likely well over 40+ million if you count undocumented people) California is more than a viable market for vastly expanding all forms of transit. Save one: building new highways.

Maintain, strengthen and keep the ones we already have going strong. But don't compound an already huge issue. People need choices. And, guess what? Some of those choices are better rail transit, including in the overnight realm. Put it on the schedule and make it known, the passengers will come.

 

[neroden]

I'm currently waiting on Google Books to acknowledge that, as a state publication, a Caltrans report with the ridership information should be full view rather than snippet view. Been about six weeks for "review process" so maybe I should harass them again about it.

And I will point out, once again, that overnight trains underperform and that the coastal corridor, quite frankly, isn't a good route for anything.

Well, except for getting to the coastal cities, you know. Revival of Monterey and Santa Cruz service would be worthwhile. Paso Robles to Salinas is....mmm, well, once CAHSR opens, probably not going to get much business.

Yes, but the question is always there whether (with improvements, and that track could probably do wonders with some improvements) whether it would make sense to run through service versus turning everything and leaving a gap. 2-3 through trains probably makes sense (there will still be plenty of pairs that are better-served by a through service than using CAHSR and "backtracking").

Actually, I started adding this up, and there won't be that many. Consider:

Salinas - San Jose less than 2 hours

Santa Barbara - Burbank about 2 1/2 hours

SF-LA via HSR supposed to be 2 hours 40 minutes

Total 7 hours or so

Now, Salinas-Gilroy (where HSR will have a station) - Burbank (where HSR will have a station) will be shorter than this total, because it won't include:

LA - Burbank

Gilroy-San Jose (twice)

San Jose - San Francisco

Salinas to Santa Barbara takes *over six hours* right now. Even with the "detours" involved, it'll probably be faster to go the "long way around" from Santa Barbara to Salinas.

That doesn't leave much demand for the coastal route. There's still a *little* (Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, Atascadero, Paso Robles), but well below critical mass for many frequencies. One per day should do it.

 

[Paulus]

So at one point Caltrans considered extending the Spirit of California to Indio with Thruway connections to Mexicali for the Coachella service. Anyhow, here's the info:



 

[jis]

Wow! Those are truly miserable farebox ratios! Heck NJT has better farebox ratios than that, as does LIRR and MNRR AFAIR.

 

[Paulus]

And of course an hour after I get home Google decides to let me know that it's all online now.

 

[neroden]

1981-1983 Amtrak ridership overall was low in general and dropping. But it stayed at about the same level until 1996 or so, and then took off.

If you revived the train now, it would have 1.5x as much ridership just based on general nationwide trends. California's population trends mean it's outperforming the average. It would probably reach the 55% farebox recovery ratio.

 

[Paulus]

1981-1983 Amtrak ridership overall was low in general and dropping. But it stayed at about the same level until 1996 or so, and then took off.

If you revived the train now, it would have 1.5x as much ridership just based on general nationwide trends. California's population trends mean it's outperforming the average. It would probably reach the 55% farebox recovery ratio.

Amtrak has changed the billing a few times since then and Starlight ridership, heavily intra-Californian, has cratered as well, so it probably wouldn't. Silver Meteor and the Auto Train are the only overnight routes which currently achieve that 55% performance standard I should note.

 

[Paulus]

From the 1990-1995 Rail Passenger Development Plan

During early 1982, an air fare war was initiated by entry of Pacific Express into the California market with an unrestricted $29 San Francisco-Los Angeles one-way ticket. Other secondary carriers in the market responded with $25 to $35 each-way discount tickets bearing some restrictions. The standard one-way air fare was between $45 and $66 for most city pairs in the Northern California - Southern California market. Amtrak' s charge of $104.50 for a roomette between Los Angeles and Sacramento, higher than airfare plus a hotel, was not price-competitive at the time.

So that probably didn't help things out at all...

And while I disagree with the conclusion for 2015 (owing to changes in billing and air fares dropping in real dollars from 1990), full disclosure:

During the second year of operation of the previous service, ridership was approximately 83,000 passengers, avoidable loss was $5.7 million, and the farebox ratio was 32 percent (see Table below). A revived operation starting in 1990 with the original stations has been projected considering population increases and fare changes to carry about 120,000 passengers by the end of its third year of operation, have an annual short-term avoidable loss of approximately $4.8 million, and a farebox ratio about 50 percent.

Figures for additional revenues generated by adding new stations, or by operating bus feeder service have been calculated separately. They demonstrate that, with both such enhancements, a cost-effective service is possible, with a ridership of 156,000, annual short-term avoidable loss of $3.9 million and a farebox ratio of about 63 percent by the third year.

Therefore, Caltrans finds that the overnight train is expected to be able to comply with the State-mandated efficiency standard

(which is a 55 percent farebox ratio) specified in Section 14031.8 of the Government Code.

About half the increased ridership (25,000) would be from bus feeder connections.